On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Do we disagree that it is a worthy goal to have a specification that
> can be understood without having to take a while? I certainly
> understand the utility in using something with precedent like IDL (for
> implementors). Perhaps the IDL version could be part of an addendum,
> and something
What "something"?
> with less historical and conceptual baggage be used
> inline? Or is that too much work?
Do the work, it's the only way to get to "something" and make it stick.
I don't think we should continue cross-posting like this to three
standards groups' lists. Yes, old and layered specs are often complex,
even over-complicated. No, we can't fix that complexity in the case of
WebIDL by rewriting the extant interface descriptions in ES. As Maciej
noted, doing so would cost ~10x the source lines, and beyond verbosity
would be incredibly unclear and error-prone.
Those who seek to replace WebIDL must first grok what it means, how it
is used. To do that, I suggest trimming cross-posts, and even before
replying, reading up on the relevant WebIDL docs and list. Once you've
braced yourself for this process, and gotten further into it, I am
sure that a Q&A process will work better.
You are absolutely correct that the specs are complex and have gaps.
Every engineer who has worked on a web-compatible browser has had to
learn this the hard way. I don't expect the Web to be "done" but I do
think better specs will close gaps and reduce some of the complexity
over time. That's the hope behind this overlong, cross-posted thread,
anyway. I'll shut up now.
/be